> On 11 Feb 2018, at 23:29, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Scott Aaronson has an interesting blog entry on quantum interpretations:
> He seems somewhat conflicted over which interpretation to believe.....
> "Anyway, as I said, MWI is the best interpretation if we leave ourselves out
> of the picture..... what would it be like to be maintained in a coherent
> superposition of thinking two different thoughts A and B, and then to get
> measured in the |A>+|B>, |A>-|B> basis? Would it even be like anything? Or is
> there something about our consciousness that depends on decoherence,
> irreversibility, full participation in the arrow of time, not living in an
> enclosed little unitary box .... something that we'd necessarily destroy if
> we tried to set up a large-scale interference experiment on our own brains,
> or any other conscious entities?"
> I think the idea that consciousness depends on full participation in the
> arrow of time -- namely, the irreversible formation of memories -- is
> something that need to be taken seriously.
This is what I thought for a very long time, and that gives a relation between
the knower, and its personal memories, and is coherent with the temporal
interpretation of the S4Grz1 logics.
It is also quite suggested by Everett formulation/interpretation of QM, with
the personal histories determined by the sequence of measurement and “sharp”
Yet, it is what salvia makes me able to doubt, … until I saw that the
independence of consciousness from time and space explains better the
enlightenment in the arithmetical self-reference theory.
So, to simplify a bit, before salvia, I was pretty much with you here, and I
thought that enlightenment state was the “pure” Löbian state (the logic G, G*):
enlightenment = (Universal =====> Löbian).
But after salvia, I realise that this could be false, and consciousness is more
tricky and a bit less Bergsonian or Heraclitean than I thought, and more
Parmenidien and Hindouist or buddhist (some school), and I think now that
enlightenment = (Löbian =====> Universal).
Only the differentiation of consciousness create time, but consciousness can
live in an undifferentiated highly dissociative state.
It simplifies the problem, consciousness becomes an attribute to all machines,
and only when they differentiates, from interaction, stories, does that
consciousness restricted to an ego which identifies itself to what he
remembers, quickly, forgetting who remember the first memories.
I use the quasi-axiomatic that consciousness, for the machine M, more or less:
True for M
Knowable by M
Non provable by M
Non doubtable by M
Non definable by M
If the enlightenment theory above is correct, as the induction axioms is what
lead the universal machine to Löbianity, and that would already the beginning
of the fall (of the soul). The induction axiom would be the first illusion!
Nelson should love this. It does not make PA inconsistent, but it makes it
having the white rabbit (reality relation) if the induction axioms were
postulated in the ontology. Things are even worse if we put an axiom of
infinity in the ontology. Judson Webb was more right than I understood at
first: mechanism *is* an ontological finitism.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.